I am creating this thread as a response to several users who have misread my stance on guns generally. The misinterpretation is completely understandable - after all, I will say I am anti-gun and even anti-gun rights. So how can I say that, while being sure that I have never said, nor would I ever say I support a ban on guns, or that I don't think you have a right to a gun?

Let me start with what I really want. Forget about more background checks, forget about magazine capacity or any fiddle bit of gun-control. What I really want is a change in culture. I want people to stop feeling like they need to arm-up to go out for a cup of coffee. I want people to stop thinking that there is a criminal around every dark corner just itching to shot you for your cheap Timex, or worthless cell phone. We live in an extraordinarily safe country (those of us in America, or Europe). The idea that we need to be packing heat like it's the old west is preposterous and apocryphal. Guns in the old western towns were not as welcome as they are today! We are collectively getting overly paranoid. So, what I want is a shift in the thinking, not really in law, however"

"TBR, how can you be anti-gun rights, you want to ban guns, right?" No. Not at all. It's hard to imagine my country, or any country really, with an outright ban on guns. Allowing guns to exist as private property of individuals DOES NOT require a constitutional right. It is an oddball in the bill of rights - it's a right to a device? Strange at best, unnecessary completely. I do not ignore that it exists in our constitution (those of us in the US), we are among the very few countries with any such nonsense in our constitution. Further, I can disagree with the SCOTUS rulings, but don't ignore them, and I don't argue that they should be overturned. Put simply, the right is silly to me. Guns in the US without the mention of "arms" in the constitution would still be legal. Federal/states/cities/townships would make laws more tailored to the population, I would even guess that in many places where guns are beloved by the population, the limits would be much more lax than they are now, but that is a tangent. Point is, I have never argued for a ban on guns - not here, not anywhere.

Well, there you have it in less than 500 words. I am an anti-gun, anti-gun rights liberal that has no interest in "taking all your guns" or bitching about the current state of the SCOTUS.

At 11/5/2015 5:50:25 PM, TBR wrote:I am creating this thread as a response to several users who have misread my stance on guns generally. The misinterpretation is completely understandable - after all, I will say I am anti-gun and even anti-gun rights. So how can I say that, while being sure that I have never said, nor would I ever say I support a ban on guns, or that I don't think you have a right to a gun?

Let me start with what I really want. Forget about more background checks, forget about magazine capacity or any fiddle bit of gun-control. What I really want is a change in culture. I want people to stop feeling like they need to arm-up to go out for a cup of coffee. I want people to stop thinking that there is a criminal around every dark corner just itching to shot you for your cheap Timex, or worthless cell phone. We live in an extraordinarily safe country (those of us in America, or Europe). The idea that we need to be packing heat like it's the old west is preposterous and apocryphal. Guns in the old western towns were not as welcome as they are today! We are collectively getting overly paranoid. So, what I want is a shift in the thinking, not really in law, however"

"TBR, how can you be anti-gun rights, you want to ban guns, right?" No. Not at all. It's hard to imagine my country, or any country really, with an outright ban on guns. Allowing guns to exist as private property of individuals DOES NOT require a constitutional right. It is an oddball in the bill of rights - it's a right to a device? Strange at best, unnecessary completely. I do not ignore that it exists in our constitution (those of us in the US), we are among the very few countries with any such nonsense in our constitution. Further, I can disagree with the SCOTUS rulings, but don't ignore them, and I don't argue that they should be overturned. Put simply, the right is silly to me. Guns in the US without the mention of "arms" in the constitution would still be legal. Federal/states/cities/townships would make laws more tailored to the population, I would even guess that in many places where guns are beloved by the population, the limits would be much more lax than they are now, but that is a tangent. Point is, I have never argued for a ban on guns - not here, not anywhere.

Well, there you have it in less than 500 words. I am an anti-gun, anti-gun rights liberal that has no interest in "taking all your guns" or bitching about the current state of the SCOTUS.

Questions? : :

Would you, like the Jews who were slaughtered in Germany, fight for your life or walk with the rest of the herd to your death like they did because they had no guns to defend themselves?

The societies who are left without any way of defending themselves can easily become slaves to dictators. The right to bear arms was meant to keep the citizens in total control of their government instead of being controlled by their government, which is happening in the U.S.

Would you, like the Jews who were slaughtered in Germany, fight for your life or walk with the rest of the herd to your death like they did because they had no guns to defend themselves?

The societies who are left without any way of defending themselves can easily become slaves to dictators. The right to bear arms was meant to keep the citizens in total control of their government instead of being controlled by their government, which is happening in the U.S.

At 11/5/2015 6:07:32 PM, edgar_winters wrote:The societies who are left without any way of defending themselves can easily become slaves to dictators.

First of all, you can't make sure everyone will be against the government, so you're running the risk of your neighbours being able to take you out before your government. Second, do you think that in the 21st century normal handguns or something slightly more powerful will protect you against much better equipped and well-trained government forces?

Would you, like the Jews who were slaughtered in Germany, fight for your life or walk with the rest of the herd to your death like they did because they had no guns to defend themselves?

The societies who are left without any way of defending themselves can easily become slaves to dictators. The right to bear arms was meant to keep the citizens in total control of their government instead of being controlled by their government, which is happening in the U.S.

Did you even bother to read the post before going all apoplectic? : :

I had to look up the word "apoplectic" to see what you're saying about me.

You used the wrong dictionary word to describe my knowledge about the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Those of you who need to use uncommon dictionary words don't impress me at all. The power I have will destroy all dictionary words soon.

At 11/5/2015 6:07:32 PM, edgar_winters wrote:The societies who are left without any way of defending themselves can easily become slaves to dictators.

First of all, you can't make sure everyone will be against the government, so you're running the risk of your neighbours being able to take you out before your government. Second, do you think that in the 21st century normal handguns or something slightly more powerful will protect you against much better equipped and well-trained government forces?

You should ask the U.S. citizens what happened when American farmers used their rifles against the British "well-trained" army. They understand very well why they have the right to bear arms.

At 11/5/2015 6:21:02 PM, edgar_winters wrote:You should ask the U.S. citizens what happened when American farmers used their rifles against the British "well-trained" army. They understand very well why they have the right to bear arms.

Did you read what I wrote? It's not just better trained, it is *much* better equipped. Even the police is exceptionally well-armed: http://www.americanconservativedailynews.com... The difference between equipped citizens and government forces now is much bigger than it was back then.

At 11/5/2015 6:21:02 PM, edgar_winters wrote:You should ask the U.S. citizens what happened when American farmers used their rifles against the British "well-trained" army. They understand very well why they have the right to bear arms.

Did you read what I wrote? It's not just better trained, it is *much* better equipped. Even the police is exceptionally well-armed: http://www.americanconservativedailynews.com... The difference between equipped citizens and government forces now is much bigger than it was back then. : :

The British army was the most equipped army of it's time. They used their guns and well-trained army to conquer a large portion of the world who didn't have the protection they needed to combat them.

First of all, you can't make sure everyone will be against the government, so you're running the risk of your neighbours being able to take you out before your government. Second, do you think that in the 21st century normal handguns or something slightly more powerful will protect you against much better equipped and well-trained government forces?

...

Its a little funny. Well, first I don't necessary want this thread to get all sideways, but, I tried to make this exact same point to a gun-supporter not long ago, and for the life of me could not get it through to him. His assumption is that every American packing heat would be with him in overthrowing the government. There is absolute NO doubt that in any scenario some percentage closing in on half would be on the side of the government ALONG with government military.

At 11/5/2015 6:31:18 PM, Insignifica wrote:God damn, American gun nuts are stupid. The fantasies of an armed rebellion against the US government are beyond absurd.

Well, it most certainly is, and it is rooted in complete failure of understanding of the revolutionary war. As I was getting at with Mirza, not all citizens in a rebellion will be "on your side". During the war, the number of "Loyalists" were as high as 1/3 the population. Add to that number the majority of native-American tribes who had allied with the British, and the number of Patriots is a minority. Without argument, the Patriots, regardless of pluck would have been leveled without the French. This was, in all reality, no different than the proxy wars we fight today.

I also agree with TBR. This is a constitutional right that makes no sense. We sensibly have to have restrictions on arms, or we will have grenades used for home defense.

We already restrict almost all the rights listed in the constitution, even the right to free speech. There's no reason to think restrictions on gun rights is a brand new idea that must be resisted. Stop fighting this.

I also agree with TBR. This is a constitutional right that makes no sense. We sensibly have to have restrictions on arms, or we will have grenades used for home defense.

We already restrict almost all the rights listed in the constitution, even the right to free speech. There's no reason to think restrictions on gun rights is a brand new idea that must be resisted. Stop fighting this.

Neither the supreme court nor any serious legal scholar claims that the 2nd amendment prohibits regulation of weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not a legal oddball--the right to bear arms was considered one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, on par with a jury trial

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 11/5/2015 6:28:07 PM, edgar_winters wrote:The British army was the most equipped army of it's time. They used their guns and well-trained army to conquer a large portion of the world who didn't have the protection they needed to combat them.

I'll repeat again: no matter how powerful they were, the difference between the population and government forces was much smaller back then that it is now. Here I'm talking about the equipment the government back then used to conquer the population (so, not ships etc.) vis a vis the equipment they'd use today (advanced armoured vehicles, weapons very few people could even afford, bombs, etc.). It's a huge difference.

I'm not here to discuss your American gun policy per se as I hardly care about your society, but I want to tell you why your position on guns in general is stupid.

Strangely enough, despite my immense dislike for the idea of gun rights, I would actually support concealed-carry laws for the US. In a country where it is ridiculously easy for criminals to obtain guns, CCW laws serve to somewhat level the playing field. There are sufficient regulations on who receives CCW permits to ensure that very minimal abuse occurs, while still providing the benefits of self-defense outside the home (which is actually a quite reasonable desire in certain areas). If you look up the numbers, there's like 20 people per year who get their permits revoked for criminal behavior. That said, I'd obviously prefer a policy of total disarmament where possible. CCW laws are only beneficial in the context of the American gun culture (which makes effective gun control legislation extremely unlikely).

Neither the supreme court nor any serious legal scholar claims that the 2nd amendment prohibits regulation of weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not a legal oddball--the right to bear arms was considered one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, on par with a jury trial

I agree with the first part, no SCOTUS ruling has ever said "restriction" is not accaptable.

I say it is an oddball, because... well it is. A right to "protect" "defend" all make sense in context. The device to insure this has been said to be a gun. That is, in this constitutional readers mind, out of the norm of the writing of the others. Nowhere else is a device the right. Like, it does not say I have a right to paper and pencil, or a right to a megaphone. It says freedom of press, freedom of speech etc.

All this, again so there is no further misunderstanding, is NOT to say that the right is in question - not by this guy.

I'll repeat again: no matter how powerful they were, the difference between the population and government forces was much smaller back then that it is now. Here I'm talking about the equipment the government back then used to conquer the population (so, not ships etc.) vis a vis the equipment they'd use today (advanced armoured vehicles, weapons very few people could even afford, bombs, etc.). It's a huge difference.

I'm not here to discuss your American gun policy per se as I hardly care about your society, but I want to tell you why your position on guns in general is stupid.

Its even worse. This myth that "farmers with guns" did this is... well, nuts! We got our guns from the French. They were very advanced, as good or better than the British. The french supplied MORE naval forces than the British sent. This idea that David fought Goliath and won is folklore.

Neither the supreme court nor any serious legal scholar claims that the 2nd amendment prohibits regulation of weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not a legal oddball--the right to bear arms was considered one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, on par with a jury trial

I agree with the first part, no SCOTUS ruling has ever said "restriction" is not accaptable.

I say it is an oddball, because... well it is. A right to "protect" "defend" all make sense in context. The device to insure this has been said to be a gun. That is, in this constitutional readers mind, out of the norm of the writing of the others. Nowhere else is a device the right. Like, it does not say I have a right to paper and pencil, or a right to a megaphone. It says freedom of press, freedom of speech etc.

I think that's a distinction without merit. I can just as easily say "the 7th amendment is an oddball because it specifies a monetary value. Nowhere else is a monetary value specified." And that would be true...but also completely irrelevant.

I don't even think your point is true. Just as they didn't specify "You have the right to write with this specific pen" but instead "freedom of the press", they didn't say "You have to right to keep and bear small bore muskets", they said "You have the right to keep and bear arms". It's not the right to an object, it's the right to an abstract concept

All this, again so there is no further misunderstanding, is NOT to say that the right is in question - not by this guy.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

Neither the supreme court nor any serious legal scholar claims that the 2nd amendment prohibits regulation of weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not a legal oddball--the right to bear arms was considered one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, on par with a jury trial

I agree with the first part, no SCOTUS ruling has ever said "restriction" is not accaptable.

I say it is an oddball, because... well it is. A right to "protect" "defend" all make sense in context. The device to insure this has been said to be a gun. That is, in this constitutional readers mind, out of the norm of the writing of the others. Nowhere else is a device the right. Like, it does not say I have a right to paper and pencil, or a right to a megaphone. It says freedom of press, freedom of speech etc.

I think that's a distinction without merit. I can just as easily say "the 7th amendment is an oddball because it specifies a monetary value. Nowhere else is a monetary value specified." And that would be true...but also completely irrelevant.

I don't even think your point is true. Just as they didn't specify "You have the right to write with this specific pen" but instead "freedom of the press", they didn't say "You have to right to keep and bear small bore muskets", they said "You have the right to keep and bear arms". It's not the right to an object, it's the right to an abstract concept

All this, again so there is no further misunderstanding, is NOT to say that the right is in question - not by this guy.

It is a distinction without meaning, and strictly opinion based, but to keep the discussion going, the arm has been interpreted as synopsis with gun. The device used to fulfill a right is odd in my reading of the first 10. In English common-law, as you note as a source, the right was a right of self-defense. The old SCOTUS reading was ~The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" replaced with Heller as saying "firearm" explicitly.

Neither the supreme court nor any serious legal scholar claims that the 2nd amendment prohibits regulation of weapons. The 2nd Amendment is not a legal oddball--the right to bear arms was considered one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen, on par with a jury trial

I agree with the first part, no SCOTUS ruling has ever said "restriction" is not accaptable.

I say it is an oddball, because... well it is. A right to "protect" "defend" all make sense in context. The device to insure this has been said to be a gun. That is, in this constitutional readers mind, out of the norm of the writing of the others. Nowhere else is a device the right. Like, it does not say I have a right to paper and pencil, or a right to a megaphone. It says freedom of press, freedom of speech etc.

I think that's a distinction without merit. I can just as easily say "the 7th amendment is an oddball because it specifies a monetary value. Nowhere else is a monetary value specified." And that would be true...but also completely irrelevant.

I don't even think your point is true. Just as they didn't specify "You have the right to write with this specific pen" but instead "freedom of the press", they didn't say "You have to right to keep and bear small bore muskets", they said "You have the right to keep and bear arms". It's not the right to an object, it's the right to an abstract concept

All this, again so there is no further misunderstanding, is NOT to say that the right is in question - not by this guy.

It is a distinction without meaning, and strictly opinion based, but to keep the discussion going, the arm has been interpreted as synopsis with gun. The device used to fulfill a right is odd in my reading of the first 10.

The right is the right to keep and bear arms--obviously the fulfillment of that right has implications on firearm policy. That's not unusual in the slightest--I could argue that the right to a jury trial is "odd", I mean how can you really have a right to an institution? Those are both distinctions without any validity.

In English common-law, as you note as a source, the right was a right of self-defense.

It was not. The right to keep weapons was a common law right jealously guarded for centuries. From Blackstones commentary on the rights of Englishmen in the 1790s: "everyone is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the [unlawful] destruction of game." http://poseidon01.ssrn.com...

There is a very long common law tradition predating even the discovery of the new world of the right to arms as one of the most fundamental of free men. The founders were completely imbued in this tradition--America was essentially founded by English people who were too English for England.

The old SCOTUS reading was ~The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" replaced with Heller as saying "firearm" explicitly.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

I don't really care what the second amendment says. The point is that it lost its relevance more than a century ago, and continuing to keep it around past that point has caused a tremendous amount of harm to the US. The only reason I don't support repealing it is because America's resident population of trigger-happy idiots would probably start a civil war, and even if they would inevitably lose, it would still inflict a great deal of damage upon society.

There is a very long common law tradition predating even the discovery of the new world of the right to arms as one of the most fundamental of free men. The founders were completely imbued in this tradition--America was essentially founded by English people who were too English for England.

In the three preceding articles we have taken a short view of the principal absolute rights [personal security, personal liberty, private property] which appertain to every Englishman. But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as outworks or barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

1. The constitution, powers, and privileges of parliament . . . .2. The limitation of the king's prerogative . . . .3. . . . [A]pplying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries.4. . . . [T]he right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances.5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute . . . and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

So... Again, understood that it is the logical implementation, but not the right itself. As said "auxiliary"

At 11/5/2015 8:16:21 PM, TBR wrote:The old SCOTUS reading was ~The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" replaced with Heller as saying "firearm" explicitly.

Also on this, don't be silly. I hate when leftists act like there was a rich tradition of supreme court jurisprudence on the second amendment prior to Heller that Heller just brazenly overturned. There wasn't. The Wikipedia article on Firearms case law lists exactly 3 Supreme Court cases relating to the second amendment that predated Heller, one of which affirmed the individual right to bear arms but noted that the amendment did not apply to the states (this was pre incorporation doctrine). Another case, the one that you are referring to, rejected the argument that a specific regulation (a ban on sawed off shotguns) violated the second amendment. It did not make the claim that the 2nd amendment did not protect a right to own a firearm, the court just ruled that certain regulations are acceptable. This is still the position of the court, because it's the sane position.

Heller in it's declaration that the 2nd amendment protects the right to a firearm is much more in line with the intent of the 2nd amendment and the tradition it stemmed from than any slimy argument about the specific language by any rational analysis.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

The old SCOTUS reading was ~The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" replaced with Heller as saying "firearm" explicitly.

Also on this, don't be silly. I hate when leftists act like there was a rich tradition of supreme court jurisprudence on the second amendment prior to Heller that Heller just brazenly overturned. There wasn't.

How on earth are you reading that into what I said throughout this thread? Take your frustration with liberals out on whomever said such things, and not just the nearest target.

There is a very long common law tradition predating even the discovery of the new world of the right to arms as one of the most fundamental of free men. The founders were completely imbued in this tradition--America was essentially founded by English people who were too English for England.

In the three preceding articles we have taken a short view of the principal absolute rights [personal security, personal liberty, private property] which appertain to every Englishman. But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as outworks or barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

1. The constitution, powers, and privileges of parliament . . . .2. The limitation of the king's prerogative . . . .3. . . . [A]pplying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries.4. . . . [T]he right of petitioning the king, or either house of parliament, for the redress of grievances.5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute . . . and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

So... Again, understood that it is the logical implementation, but not the right itself. As said "auxiliary"

Umm..."fifth and last auxiliary". Every right you copy pasted was declared "auxiliary"

I really don't understand what you're trying to say here, but you are completely wrong that the English common law did not include the right to bear arms and your argument for why the second amendment is an "oddball" is basically just sophistry. You haven't even attempted to demonstrate why it's a distinction that is important

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle